Downing Street

[Inkthinker]

No-one is talking about this? I listened to the hearing, it seemed kinda like news to me. I mean, when it comes to evidence, the minutes of a meeting between high-ranking officials of our closest ally seems pretty solid.

CNN hasn't peeped up about it, though. Nor FOX, I'll wager. C-SPAN covered it, as did "the liberal media", but I've been itching to see how ridiculously small this closet they were in down in the basement of Congress really is, and I'll be damned if I can find a channel on TV that's talking about it at all.

If the tree falls in the woods and everyone pretends it didn't happen, does it still crush a lumberjack?

[Steven Grant]

They were going into it some on the Today Show this morning, of all places. It's picking up steam as a story, especially since a second memo has surfaced that places a handshake deal between Blair and the Hand Puppet three months earlier than previously suspected.

The official story of the media/right wing now isn't, as previously stated, that the memo is bollocks (it has been verified by the British government) but that it "presents no new information." Translated: we all knew the anti-Iraq data was fabricated, that's not news. The Hand Puppet's response to it was that it was released while Blair for running for re-election so the release was obviously political in nature, so just ignore it because it's biased. Interesting logic. The media has, in general, been trying very hard to make this story go away, but it's starting to snowball, both in Congress and among the general population, far more of whom are aware of it than the media wants to let on. Recent polls (if you want to believe polls) have almost half the country now believing the "evidence" against Iraq was fabricated, and the latest one I heard this morning was that about 40% of Americans now want an immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and around 60% (inc. that 40%) want them out very quickly and now don't think we should ever have entered the engagement.

So there's an interesting shift going on. In terms of how quickly the media are catching up to it, this has a fascinating and unfortunate sense of deja vu for me... but let's not bring up the "V" word...

By the way, did you see where the South (or was it North?) Caroline senator who coined the term "freedom fries" - a Republican - now believes the White House flat out lied to Congress to get approval to the war and is bandying the "I" word...?

[Inkthinker]

Yeah, I caught that. He's from NC, my own second home (I have family in Appalachia). I'd laugh, but "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" aren't funny. They aren't French, either, for that matter. Just because this particular politician seems to have come around to sanity doesn't mean he's not still the guy who poured out perfectly good liquor into a river (bourbon or chardonnay, can't recall).

I really want to hear more about this, and so far all I can do is follow some of the more leftist blogs/webcasts/news and so forth... and while listening to liberal extremists causes less of a gag reflex that listening to conservatives, I'm still wary because they are extremists, and just as capable and willing to twist things around. I missed the C-SPAN3 coverage, and haven't seen a second of film on this since. I rather expected Stewart to pick it up last night, but I guess they taped too early to do a story on it, so that means waiting to Monday.

But dammit, I did listen to the hearing on the radio, at least, and those weren't liberal pundits and media wolves, they were freaking United States Congressmen, CIA ambassadors and so forth. You can call 'em biased if you want, but they're still elected and/or high-ranking appointees of our nation. And they said some hefty shit there, not the least of which is that (and this is the part I really want to know more about) if in fact these memos and minutes are authentic and complete, then GW lied to Congress. He also lied to the American people, but that's not an impeachable high crime.

-EDIT-

Nothing about this on CNN or Drudge (kinda surprised by the latter), but Google News picked up some articles. I thought this one makes the pros and cons of the situation pretty clear:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050617/pressing_the_basement_revolution.php

[Briareos]

Care to comment on this section of the memo?

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

Why if the British believed that we knew Saddam didn't have WMDs were they concerened that Saddam had WMDs?

Because the word fixed means that the British believed we were gathering facts (not making them up) to support our case.

[badMike]

Care to comment on this section of the memo?I'll let the memo answer for itself, since the new tactic is to pick and pull certain segments out of context.

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.Let's see. They (meaning the U.S.) had a policy (meaning invading Iraq) crafted at least in 2002 if not earlier and were then "fixing" (meaning making shit up) intelligence around it. I dunno, that seems pretty friggin' clear to me.

The memo's here if anyone's interested:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Also, in answer to your question, the memo says this:

Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.They may have thought he had WMDs, but they knew Iraq wasn't a threat. Hey, what's North Korea up to these days? That's right, they have nuclear weapons now. Good job!

[Briareos]

I'll let the memo answer for itself, since the new tactic is to pick and pull certain segments out of context.

Let's see. They (meaning the U.S.) had a policy (meaning invading Iraq) crafted at least in 2002 if not earlier and were then "fixing" (meaning making shit up) intelligence around it. I dunno, that seems pretty friggin' clear to me.

The memo's here if anyone's interested:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Also, in answer to your question, the memo says this:

They may have thought he had WMDs, but they knew Iraq wasn't a threat. Hey, what's North Korea up to these days? That's right, they have nuclear weapons now. Good job!


Um so your saying that North Korea wouldn't have nukes if we hadn't invaded Iraq. We couldn't have stopped them without invading North Korea no matter what (Clinton foolishly got a agreement where we gave them aid for them not to develop nukes that they broke before the ink was dry).

[badMike]

Um so your saying that North Korea wouldn't have nukes if we hadn't invaded Iraq. We couldn't have stopped them without invading North Korea no matter what (Clinton foolishly got a agreement where we gave them aid for them not to develop nukes that they broke before the ink was dry).Good God, anything to drag out a "Nyah, nyah Bill Clinton is a jerk" comment. How original. By the way, you're wrong. NK didn't have nukes under Clinton. They do now under Bush.

Funny how you decided to focus on my NK comment and dropped the Memo. Didn't care to keep that up, hunh?

[Briareos]

Its pretty much agreed upon that in order for North Korea to have gotten to where they are at now they would have had to start soon after the agreement was signed.

[badMike]

Its pretty much agreed upon that in order for North Korea to have gotten to where they are at now they would have had to start soon after the agreement was signed.NK had the ability to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel as early as 1990, three years before Clinton became president. Guess who was president then?

[Inkthinker]

The fact remains that Bush told us he would go to war "only as a last resort". And he told us that Iraq was an immediate threat, and it was not (and they knew it). And they made it sound like if we did not invade, they would hurt us as badly as 9-11 or worse, and this was speculation based on misinformation that they knew was wrong.

Over 1700 men and women have died. And that's just the official count, which omits those who die as a result of injuries recieved in Iraqi combat, but not while they're still in Iraq. If those numbers are added, I believe it goes over 5000.

I don't even know how many thousands upon thousands of our soldiers are horribly mutilated, or scarred in their minds so badly that they strike out in rage against their own husbands, wives and children. We'll be hearing about the pain of Iraq vets for years and years to come.

Sure, they're all soldiers. They signed up, they took the job, they know the risks. But if they must suffer, it should be for honest reasons.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead or wounded. Their families swell the ranks of the so-called "insurgency", and it's coming to light that the official BS about the insurgency being composed entirely of Al Quaida and foriegn mercenaries is just that: bullshit. Innocent people wracked by the grief of children and siblings and parents ripped away from them in violence are easily convinced to strap a belt of c-4 to the waist, or drive a car into a crowd of soldiers, believing that in such a death they will be reunited with those they love that much sooner. Or at the very least, they'll have vengeance. And if they can't be convinced to commit suicide, they can at least be convinced to take up a weapon, or set an IED, or even just look the other way.

They don't "hate us for our freedom". They hate us because we torture prisoners and invade countries and overthrow governments and we lie about it. None of that just started happening in the past year, we've been at it for decades now. It's just happening enough now that we can't hide it anymore, and the lies are painfully thin.

They hate us because we act like bullies and we expect the rest of the world to treat us as though we're special, and the rules we apply to everyone else don't apply to us. How should we be surprised that anyone hates America when they've seen that first-hand?

Our country isn't safer than we were before 9-11... a huge amount of our National Guard is serving overseas, and recruitment is in the gutter (another year of that and we'll see how far Bush's sworn promise of "no draft" flies). Terrorists can still strike us in many ways if provided with the motive, opportunity and resources. And there are so many more of them than there were, now that we've scared or hurt so many people for reasons that change every few months.

And we as a nation are so ludicrously in debt that the numbers exist in a realm of pure hyperbole... my grandchildren will be feeling the economic impact of a war that, if this memo is to believed, never needed to happen.

And THAT'S why this is so important.

If he lied to Congress, he needs to be removed from office. That's the law.

[jonahhex]

If he lied to Congress, he needs to be removed from office. That's the law.
I loved to see G.W. impeached but he has not had an affair with young woman yet like Clinton. --Plus G.W. is no more guilty of lying to the u.s. public than Truman over the massacres of south Korean trade unionists and others in the late 1940s, LBJ over the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia, or Reagan over Iran contra. Lying about foreign policy is old hat, and u.s. citizens do not seem to care.

[bartl]

NK had the ability to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel as early as 1990, three years before Clinton became president. Guess who was president then?
For plutonium bombs, getting the plutonium is relatively simple compared to building the bomb. For uranium bombs, building the bomb is relatively simple compared to getting the uranium. Unfortunately, too many people conflate the two.

Note that Iran is on the verge of being able to obtain bomb-grade uranium, which is why it's a danger.

[bartl]

I loved to see G.W. impeached but he has not had an affair with young woman yet like Clinton. --Plus G.W. is no more guilty of lying to the u.s. public than Truman over the massacres of south Korean trade unionists and others in the late 1940s, LBJ over the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia, or Reagan over Iran contra. Lying about foreign policy is old hat, and u.s. citizens do not seem to care.
Actually, there was an important difference. It is clear by his actions that Bush genuinely believed there to be weapons of mass destruction; hell, evidence shows that Saddam Hussein believed there were weapons of mass destruction.

If anything, the lying was a mater of emphasis (mentioning, but not emphasizing, the real reasons for invading Iraq; his relative silence about those reasons is, in and of itself, evidence that he really believed there were weapons of mass destruction, because if he did not, he would have emphasized the other reasons more, so that he would have a credible fallback position), plus not bringing up why Iraq was selected as the primary target. For those with short memories, after Afghanistan was invaded, virtually every military expert was saying that Iraq was next. There were sound military reasons for wishing to invade Iraq, which were only indirectly connected to oil.

If you take a look at a map of the Middle East, mark the terrorist centers and major camps, you will see that Iraq is ideally situated as a base for attacks against them. In terms of a larger war against the Islamicist terrorist movement, Iraq was an extremely logical place for a base for an initial invasion; take over Iraq, and the necessity for having to take over any other country is greatly reduced.

There were numerous political and treaty reasons for invading Iraq, even without the weapons of mass destruction. Bush tried to do it through the U.N. (note that "fixed" has more than one meaning; it can mean altered, but it can also mean concentrated, as in "fixing your sights on a target"; the context of the memo seems to use it in the latter sense).

The U.S. got 1441 passed in the U.N. They started amassing troops, on the assumption that Saddam Hussein would run true to form (frankly, if he had given in, that would have been good, too, for other reasons; the fact that he didn't is some of the evidence that he, himself, believed that Iraq had the weapons). Now, here's where it gets a bit complicated.

There was a physical deadline. If the U.S. troops diidn't invade by mid-April, due to weather conditions, they would not be able to stage an invasion until September. But they couldn't keep the troops in place until September, which means that if the invasion didn't go through by mid-April, the U.S. would have had to withdraw their troops, providing a major political victory by Saddam Hussein. On the other end, France and Germany saw this as an opportunity to cement their influence in the EU by taking America down a peg. They knew very well about the physical deadline, so they put their efforts into extending the deadline, with the idea that the United States would have to give up and suffer a major political defeat, with them at the helm. Countries like Italy, Spain, and Great Britain did not want France and Germany in the driver's seat, while Russia joined in with France and Germany.

Bush had been sucker punched. He had two choices: Go down, or go in under far less than optimal political conditions. The first would have been completely disastrous; it would be the equivalent of putting a sign on the ass of the United States, saying, "Kick Me". The latter, with luck, could be recoverable. So he chose the latter.

[CaptChucky]

The problem is that W didn't use actual Intelligence to go to war, he just thought that Saddam might have some WMD, and had intelligence fashioned around his ideas. Why he thought this, we don't know. Perhaps W is hearing voices in his head telling him to invade countries. Maybe he thinks God is talking to him. Maybe bombing countries appeals to his inner sadist.

But it still remains true that actual, but ignored intelligence was correct. Saddam did not have the WMDs.

[Steven Grant]

(frankly, if he had given in, that would have been good, too, for other reasons; the fact that he didn't is some of the evidence that he, himself, believed that Iraq had the weapons)

No, it's evidence of what everyone knew -- that Saddam was a blustering egomaniac who didn't want the world to see him being pushed around by the USA. But it's nonsense to say that he didn't give in to demands. His pattern was to noisily refuse to accede to demands at the time they were made, then to quietly accede to them a couple days later. He followed that pattern through the entirety of the "preamble" to the invasion.

Bush had been sucker punched.

This is flat out bullshit. He suckerpunched himself. He set up conditions for an invasion, based on a pack of lies that his administration decided were lies they could sell, that he knew in advance could not be met, because they were basically on the principle that the United States is the last superpower on Earth and the United Nations would not stand in its way but could be used to provide legitimacy for its action. It didn't work out that way. If he ended up with egg on his face, it's only because he left himself no way out of the line of fire.

No exit strategies, that's half the problem with this administration. They just can't ever conceive of a need for an exit, no matter how many times they end up needing one. Can't risk looking 'weak,' after all.

He had two choices: Go down, or go in under far less than optimal political conditions. The first would have been completely disastrous; it would be the equivalent of putting a sign on the ass of the United States, saying, "Kick Me". The latter, with luck, could be recoverable. So he chose the latter.

Well, y'know, his third choice would have been to praise the UN inspectors for their fine work, temporarily stand down the armed forces but keep them on yellow alert or whatever, and insist that UN inspectors continue their inspections. It wouldn't have been any great trick or loss of face to string things along another six months, and it would have made the US look like a cooperative superpower more interested in getting to the truth of matters than in throwing their military muscle around. It wasn't a binary situation by any stretch. But the administration basically panicked as more and more inspections continued turning up nothing, just as our own since the invasion have turned up absolutely nothing to the point where the military flat out admitted there weren't any weapons to find. What you still don't get, Bart, is that they decided -- the memos prove they decided -- invasion and occupation were the only Iraq policies they were interested in pursuing, and the inspections, if left for another six months, would undermine that rationale entirely.

And that's why we went in, not because anyone was "suckerpunched." Except the American public, of course.

[badMike]

For plutonium bombs, getting the plutonium is relatively simple compared to building the bomb. For uranium bombs, building the bomb is relatively simple compared to getting the uranium. Unfortunately, too many people conflate the two.NK has pursued using both plutonium and uranium for nuclear missiles. I didn't "conflate" anything, I just reported on one aspect. If you want to expand upon NK's uranium program, feel free.

[jonahhex]

The problem is that W didn't use actual Intelligence to go to war, he just thought that Saddam might have some WMD, and had intelligence fashioned around his ideas. Why he thought this, we don't know. Perhaps W is hearing voices in his head telling him to invade countries. Maybe he thinks God is talking to him. Maybe bombing countries appeals to his inner sadist.

But it still remains true that actual, but ignored intelligence was correct. Saddam did not have the WMDs.

Isn't obvious to most people that this is and has been primarily a war for long-term control of oil? The only voices in his head G.W. is hearing is probably from exxon, mobil, and the other oil companies. No one cared about WMDs and the fake connections to Al Qaeda EXCEPT the badly directed U.S. public.

[Inkthinker]

I love how all of this information about George being determined to go to war before he said so, about the UN case being largely a sham, and about how the nonexistence of WMD is "nothing new".

Sure, it's nothing new to liberal pundits and leftists who have been screaming since day one that it was all crap. But it's an amazing twist when everyone else starts to go, "oh, yeah, hey, everyone knew it". Prior to this, that was all just left-wing liberal ranting.

Yes, people published books that said the same thing... people also publish books that say if you strip naked and dance in the light of a full moon you can get pregnant. Sure, there were experts saying that the motives for war had been established for years... there's also experts that say the jury is still "out" on evolution.

Books and experts and pundits and analysts can all be discredited or ignored.

Primary evidence is what makes the difference. It's now not just heresay, not just opinion, not just the ranting of liberal nutcases who hate the president and will say anything to discredit him... now it's the official statement of our closest ally taking place while contradicting the official statements of our own government. Something smells foul and the air needs to be cleared.

[jonahhex]

Sure, it's nothing new to liberal pundits and leftists who have been screaming since day one that it was all crap. But it's an amazing twist when everyone else starts to go, "oh, yeah, hey, everyone knew it". Prior to this, that was all just left-wing liberal ranting.

So If the "left-wing liberals" are right, we are still jerks. That's very fair.

There was primary evidence at the time that there was no WMDs. Hans Blix diplomatically told the world so. The president of Niger even told the world that there had been no effort from his country to sell nuclear material to Iraq. This was a big reason I decided to oppose the Iraqi invasion, although I am always suspicious of U.S. interests throughout the Mashraq and Mahgreb. AND I HATE SADDAM HUSSEIN and the Iraqi Ba'athists. I joined the half million protesters in NYC before the invasion occurred. The demostration made no difference because the "fix" was in.

I am definitely a "left-wing liberal". BUT i do not hate G.W. Bush anymore than Clinton or any other president. Democrats and republicans are largely the same when it comes to the middle east. The U.S. foreign policy towards the Mashraq/Middle East is uniformly anti-arab. I am Arab-American. I have been to Syria and Lebanon. I have family there.

My church and my ethnic group has been an opponent of Saddam Hussein even before he took complete power in 1978. Hussein and his relatives were the architects of the massacres of Kurds and Assyrians (my ethnic group) in 1975 during the Kurdish Rebellion that year. Our church had clippings of the massacres going on in Iraq. Most of the clippings at the time were by the right wing Patrick Buchanan, not from a "left-wing liberal". I am eternally grateful for Buchanan's honest opinion columns in the 1970s. He was pretty much alone except for the Iraqi left in the newsletter "Democratic Iraq" which our church recieved from exiled members of the Iraqi Communist party. I have perrsonally talked to two women who were tortured by the Ba'ath in Iraq in the 1980s. I like the fact Saddam hussein is in jail. BUT I am horrify by U.S. policy there so far. It seems like the U.S. is doing everything in its power to encourage Civil War.

I can't speak for all "left-wing liberal" "nutcases". For myself as an Arab-American, I have been opposed to U.S. foreign policy in the Mashraq/middle east my whole life. Israel is one example. How can any country like the U.S. support the racism of the Israeli state? Why Can't Arabs own land? Why can't we marry Jews? Why do we need seperate license plates on our cars which say we are not jewish? Why can't we have the same access to water?

Syria, according to the U.S. is an evil dictatorship, but the Palestinians in the refuge camps can set up their own businesses, own land, build their own houses. In Jordan and Lebanon, they do NOT have these rights and are stuck in the camps. But Jordan keeps the oil flowing so its ok.

Egypt is another example. Because Anwar Sadat and Mubarak are pro-west it is ok for Sadat to be the butcher boy of the muslim brotherhood, and Mubarak to turn a blind eye to the killing of the Coptic Christians by Islamists. Torture is OK. When Mubarak recently said he wanted his worthless son to succeed him as President, the U.S. said nothing.

The U.S. support of Saudi Arabia is just disgusting and purely EVIL. Saudi Arabia is even more racist than Israel and Apartheid South Africa, but they can do anything to their citizens and the thousands of "guest workers" as long as they keep the oil flowing.

Yeah, so now there is primary evidence that the "fix" was in. It does not matter. U.S. citizens for the most part won't care. The Bush administration and future Presidents, democrat and republican, will just continue policies that fuel civil war in Iraq, allow Palestinians to be treated like dogs, confront Syria, Iran, and Libya which prior to the Iraq war were slowly opening up and moderates were opening up to market reforms and greater openness. In 2000, all three of these countries were talking to the EU and China about how to start market reforms. Now that the people are scared by the U.S. bullying in their backyards, the hard-liners have new legitamacy. And hopes of the Syrian and Iranian people have been dashed, thanks to U.S. foreign policy in large part.

Just keep the oil flowing and kill an Arab for Jesus. Yeah, we are "nutcases". It is better to call us names, than actually engage in dialogue to understand any honest needs and wants.

[bartl]

Well, y'know, his third choice would have been to praise the UN inspectors for their fine work, temporarily stand down the armed forces but keep them on yellow alert or whatever, and insist that UN inspectors continue their inspections. It wouldn't have been any great trick or loss of face to string things along another six months, and it would have made the US look like a cooperative superpower more interested in getting to the truth of matters than in throwing their military muscle around. It wasn't a binary situation by any stretch.
Can you name a single military analyst at that time who said that such a thing was physically possible?

[bartl]

NK has pursued using both plutonium and uranium for nuclear missiles. I didn't "conflate" anything, I just reported on one aspect. If you want to expand upon NK's uranium program, feel free.
I was saying that getting bomb-grade plutonium doesn't put a country anywhere NEAR getting a nuclear bomb.

[bartl]

Isn't obvious to most people that this is and has been primarily a war for long-term control of oil? The only voices in his head G.W. is hearing is probably from exxon, mobil, and the other oil companies. No one cared about WMDs and the fake connections to Al Qaeda EXCEPT the badly directed U.S. public.
Let's see now. Who would you rather have in control of the oil: The big oil companies or the Islamicist terrorist movement? And, if you believe that this is a false dichotomy, feel free to show what other possibilities are available, and how they might be accomplished?

[Steven Grant]

I love how all of this information about George being determined to go to war before he said so, about the UN case being largely a sham, and about how the nonexistence of WMD is "nothing new".

Sure, it's nothing new to liberal pundits and leftists who have been screaming since day one that it was all crap. But it's an amazing twist when everyone else starts to go, "oh, yeah, hey, everyone knew it". Prior to this, that was all just left-wing liberal ranting.

You're missing the subtle interesting revelation here. It turns out it's also "nothing new" to the rightwingers, particularly the pundits, who are now admitting, however inadvertently (or, at least, so's we're not supposed to notice), that they always knew there was no actual basis in fact in all the rationales we (and they) were spouting for the invasion of Iraq, they just wanted us to invade Iraq. Partly for oil, it's true, but partly to provide a physical example of American military might for all the world to see (and that has certainly turned out well) and partly to "avenge" our "loss" at the hands of Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War. I know we didn't lose, but it seems to have been a burr up a lot of asses that we didn't take out Saddam "when we had the chance," and there was a hell of a lot of angst about "finishing the job" so that we wouldn't look "weak," even though it was only a fever dream on the part of rightwingers that it was any part of our mandate to "finish off" Saddam in the first place. (It wasn't; in fact, our deal that made a coalition possible to drive him out of Kuwait specifically forbade our following him into Iraq for further action, so that was never actually on the agenda to start with.)

[Steven Grant]

Can you name a single military analyst at that time who said that such a thing was physically possible?
Not off the top of my head, but I don't generally store the names of military analysts. Certainly I can't name any that the administration would have deigned to listen to. Are you suggesting a third option that allowed us to both save face and not go to war was impossible? Or that it couldn't have been done? A third option is always possible, unless you're either under direct or imminent attack (we weren't) or you're blockhead enough to paint yourself into a corner, and painting yourself into a corner is still no excuse for going to war. We've screwed up before and walked away from it intact, there's absolutely no reason we couldn't have finessed this.

Actually, wait, don't know why I remember this name, but Ray McCarthy. Ex-CIA analyst.

And if war is preferable to saying "I fucked up" and eating crow for a couple minutes, then we might as well just let the nukes fly and finish the job right now. The notion that if we say we're going to go to war then we have to go to war regardless of whether there's an actual reason, or that we'd better go to war now because if we don't we're going to have to juggle personnel, is morally reprehensible and, as we've learned, extremely short-sighted. Do you seriously believe that had we just said "We think the UN inspectors are doing a great job so we'll give them six more months" would have destroyed our reputation overseas? (I suspect the general reception would have been "Wow, the USA is sane and just after all.") Like I said, it's a myth that Saddam was defying us. He was doing everything we demanded (not the whole time since the Gulf War, sure, but certainly from ~2002 on) he just put up loud token resistance each time because he was obsessed with putting on a little face-saving show. Do you seriously believe that we were right to invade Iraq just because not invading Iraq would mean we'd have to shuffle troops around? The memos establish they knew at least as early as 2002 that Saddam had no aggressive capability, and the UN inspectors had by the point of invasion pretty much verified it (and the whole buying uranium from Niger thing had already been dismissed as a lie) so you can't keep falling back on "we had to get rid of the WMDs." We knew there weren't any, and they kept saying the opposite in public to the public. They did a whole presentation to various senators right before the invasion vote to scare them into okaying war by making it look at though Saddam had armed nuclear ICBMs aimed at the US mainland. (I forget which ones off the top of my head, but half a dozen senators stepped forward last year and revealed these meetings, and the media pretty much ignored them.) Without those arguments, your argument pretty much comes down to, well, if we weren't going to invade in April, when WERE we going to invade? And that's just not reason enough.

[Steven Grant]

Let's see now. Who would you rather have in control of the oil: The big oil companies or the Islamicist terrorist movement? And, if you believe that this is a false dichotomy, feel free to show what other possibilities are available, and how they might be accomplished?

Well, let's see. To the best of my knowledge, the Islamicist terrorist movement doesn't actually control any oil producing nations, so, yeah, I'd call that a false dichotomy. The third possibility is the current "legitimate' (meaning I'm not interested in arguing their legitimacy or not, but they currently rule) governments of the countries in question, which have been producing oil. It's certainly not in our best interests to be subject to their whims regarding oil, no, but neither do we have a God-given right (or any other kind) to say, "It may be on your property, but screw that, we want it, it's ours."

The other possibilities available is the development of power sources and technologies that don't depend on oil, which we should have been developing for, oh, the past 35 years or so. Instead the government has regularly undercut any such development (the current administration did it in a big way, cutting out tons of funding for alternative energy development), while oil companies, energy companies, auto manufacturers, and the ad agencies they employ have steadily (at least since the Reagan years) promoted a "What, Me Worry?" image to push big gas guzzlers, increased usage of natural gas, etc., for profit. We've been oil stupid for decades. That doesn't justify being oil aggressive now. It justifies movement toward oil independence, but too many interested parties seem to think that works against their interests...

[Paul McEnery]

Let's see now. Who would you rather have in control of the oil: The big oil companies or the Islamicist terrorist movement? And, if you believe that this is a false dichotomy, feel free to show what other possibilities are available, and how they might be accomplished?
Since you're asking...

Hugo Chavez (against whom we sponsored a coup).

Iran before the Shah (whom we imposed in order to denationalize Iran's oil stocks).

Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Which latter two rather make the point, don't they. Control by big oil companies leads directly to Islamic extremism taking control of the resource.

So it isn't even a dichotomy.

The real choice is: who gets to control a national resource? The country itself, or American business?

And that's not really a terrifically tricky question to answer.

[jonahhex]

Let's see now. Who would you rather have in control of the oil: The big oil companies or the Islamicist terrorist movement? And, if you believe that this is a false dichotomy, feel free to show what other possibilities are available, and how they might be accomplished?

Yes, this is a false dichotomy. sigh.

Apart of the strength of the Islamists is the bankruptcy of the old Populist and nationalist regimes. Neo-liberalism of the Washington Consensus tries to shift old government responsibilities from the state to the market and civil society. In many countries, the only civil society with any money to provide welfare, education, housing, etc, are the MOSQUES or groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood.

A friend of mine from Mali complains how the IMF loans forced the government to privatize water. When this happened the poor farmers went back to traditional ways of getting fluids in a desert country. The people tied water collectors to their animal's genitalia. The people use the animal urine to add to their water supply. The IMF and the western beliefs in the free market over all are the real cause of making the poor drink piss. Without government welfare, the poor of Mali now HAVE to go to the Islamists for vocational training. After all, in the countryside, the Islamists are the only ones doing ANY vocational training!!

Weaken the Islamists by strengthening the state sector esp. by having the government be fully open, transparent, and more democratic. The Islamists get much of their social legitimacy because of the weak states in the Middle East.

My proposal would be to follow the Saudi Nationalization scheme, but add MORE mandatory Foreign Direct Investment in BOTH physical and human infrastructure. (The Saudi nationalization of oil does not seek a state planned oil sector, like the old Iraq or Algeria, but private companies vying for contracts.) Training, education, and technology transfer needs to coincide with oil contracts the way China and India do with their FDI contracts. No more Brain Drain. No more simply buying western technology. The Middle east needs western technological training. It is happening but it needs to be quickened. The oil companies still get a share, but have to share more to foster growth in civil society as well as physical infrastructure.

Secondly, greatly increase democracy through at first strengthening civil society institutions and helping secular education for those who want it. (Saudi Arabia is NOT doing this at all. S.A. is focusing on the past and using guest workers to do all the real work.) The oil money should be used to integrate the Middle East into a Mediterranean economy. An increase in trade as well as an increase in skills would increase Europe and Africa's economies. Similarly, the influx of refugees to the EU by the Arab and African countries could be reduced if the third world economies were improving.

In Egypt, the Ibn Khaldun Land Human Rights Center and the National Lawyers Association in Jordan should be allowed to function without coercion. These are great groups, and should be allowed freedom to help the poor as they have tried in the past. Civil Society needs to be built first. Education levels need to be nursed to western levels. Countries, like Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Tunisia are hopefully on their way to starting this process.

Emphasizing parliamentary elections only may just cause odd forms of tribal bickering and gangersterism, like the Bush regime is trying in Iraq. Too early parliamentary democracy may just lead to the situation of the central Asian Republics, which are now much more authoritarian than they were under the old soviet union.

If parliamentary democracy is too frightening because of an outbreak of tribalism or fragmentation of a nation, democratize the Shuras/Shabias first! Instead of focusing on western solutions that may not be appropriate, look at Arabic traditions of participation in the Shuras and elsewhere. Democratize these ancient and venerable establishments. Concretely, what I mean by democraticizing the Local municipalities is to slowly transfer power from the emirs, mullahs, chieftains, priests, Sheikhs, royalty, etc. by moving to integrate civic groups, like trade unions, farmer coops, lawyers guilds, chamber of commerce’s, tenant groups, micro-lending circles, manufacturing associates, whatever, into a modern society. Modernize the old society while introducing new civil society. This means over time shifting the power of the voice of businessmen, workers and farmers over the traditional patriarchy of the emirs. I believe the best chance of the democraticazation lays in traditional structures modernizing in an open dialogical fashion, even if certain groups may need to be governed by different customary laws at first. There are many lessons from Africa that are applicable for the Middle East.

Without control of natural resources, esp. oil but also water, democracy is a sham in the Mashraq/Middle East. Just like the so-called participatory democracy in Libya, Al Gaddafi says to the Libyan People you can vote on anything in the Shabias, EXCEPT for oil, the military, foreign policy, or to criticize the revolution. If natural resources are not addressed even in the oil poor countries, like Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine, if water is out of bounds, democracy is NOT possible. If the Arabs cannot say how water, oil, and other national resources are used, then they have no real autonomy in daily life.

When the nationalization question first emerged in the 1950s to the mid 1970s, most of these countries were interested in a form of Arab populism that emulated Soviet Planned economies but without government control of certain agricultural markets and the retail distribution sectors. The excuse by the U.S. than was to prevent the big bad communist from controlling the oil, and considering how small the communists were (except outside oil poor South Yemen), this baffled most Arabs. The CIA coup in 1953 to back the Shah in Iran is an example of the west, not allowing the people to have real autonomy over their resources.

It was interpreted, as the west just wants the oil on western terms. The creation of the little Arab sheikdoms, like U.A.E, Qatar, and Kuwait were created by the British to serve their oil interests both pre WW2 and after. Flat out the 22 or 23 Arab Nations exist mostly out of colonial gerrymandering.

The Arabs and Iranian people should be in control of the oil and ALL the other natural resources in their own countries. If in the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. and the other western nations had allowed these nations to develop economic independence, such as allowing Iran to have self-government rather than a CIA controlled coup in Iran. The rise of the Islamists in Iran probably would never have happened and if it did happen it would been probably been more like the Welfare Party in Turkey which is evolving into a Muslim version of a European Christian Democratic Party through state guidance.

[Inkthinker]

You're missing the subtle interesting revelation here. It turns out it's also "nothing new" to the rightwingers, particularly the pundits...


Naw, I'm just not as skilled at articulating. That's why you be the man with the... word... thingies.

;)

[Chris Lang]

I really want to hear more about this, and so far all I can do is follow some of the more leftist blogs/webcasts/news and so forth... and while listening to liberal extremists causes less of a gag reflex that listening to conservatives, I'm still wary because they are extremists, and just as capable and willing to twist things around.

You might want to check out www.antiwar.com. It features commentary by conservatives and libertarians against the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration's foreign policy. And yes, they definately have much to say about the Downing Street memo.

Chris Lang

[bartl]

Not off the top of my head, but I don't generally store the names of military analysts. Certainly I can't name any that the administration would have deigned to listen to. Are you suggesting a third option that allowed us to both save face and not go to war was impossible? Or that it couldn't have been done? A third option is always possible, unless you're either under direct or imminent attack (we weren't) or you're blockhead enough to paint yourself into a corner, and painting yourself into a corner is still no excuse for going to war. We've screwed up before and walked away from it intact, there's absolutely no reason we couldn't have finessed this.[/QOUTE]
Actually, that was the problem. We did it too many times, starting with Jimmy Carter refusing to use the military in Iran, going on to Reagan cutting and running in Lebanon when terrorists killed a few hundred American soldiers in a single attack, and going on up to Bill Clinton in Somalia. The United States had a reputation that, when the going got tough, we cut and ran. After the 9/11 attack, a show of weakness would have been carte blanche for terrorists to attack the U.S. And yes, Bush was blockhead enough to paint the United States into a corner; what's even worse was that he had options (which the more clear-headed analysts like Col. David Hackworth or the folks over at Statfor) were practically screaming out. While most of these don't believe Bush was lying (in that he believed that his declarations about Iraq's WMD's were the truth), they DO believe that the WMD's were never more than an excuse, and that Bush should have come public with the much stronger reasons for invading Iraq, moving forward his well-received speeches on the greater war on terrorism, showing how the invasion of Iraq was not a war in and of itself, but the best possible step as a strategy in the greater war. But Bush has surrounded himself by people who tell him to pretend he's Hillary Clinton, and not tell the public anything, because the public's too stupid to understand.

[QUOTE]Actually, wait, don't know why I remember this name, but Ray McCarthy. Ex-CIA analyst.
Ray McCarthy is a comic artist; after some searching, I found you're PROBABLY thinking of Ray McGovern. Doing some research... He seems to have been, in fact, a CIA analyst. However, his analysis was about whether or not there were WMD's, not about the weather deadline, and they were written AFTER the fact; I can't find a single piece by him from before the invasion. I've noted that his organization, "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity", of which he is the only member who will reveal his name, is based out of Counterpunch Magazine (and yes, if an analyst claiming to belong to an organization was based out of FrontPage Magazine, I would be just as suspicious).
And if war is preferable to saying "I fucked up" and eating crow for a couple minutes, then we might as well just let the nukes fly and finish the job right now.It would not have been eating crow for a couple of minutes; it would have meant the deaths of thousands of Americans, worldwide, because it would have cemented a message that the Americans will back down if you kill a few of them.

[bartl]

Well, let's see. To the best of my knowledge, the Islamicist terrorist movement doesn't actually control any oil producing nations, so, yeah, I'd call that a false dichotomy. The third possibility is the current "legitimate' (meaning I'm not interested in arguing their legitimacy or not, but they currently rule) governments of the countries in question, which have been producing oil. It's certainly not in our best interests to be subject to their whims regarding oil, no, but neither do we have a God-given right (or any other kind) to say, "It may be on your property, but screw that, we want it, it's ours."
First of all, the terrorist movement DOES control quite a bit of oil (Iran, for example), and several countries were on the precipice (Saudi Arabia still is). However, the oil companies are NOT taking the oil away from the indigenous governments. What they are doing is buying the oil at a competitive rate, without political strings being attached to the purchase.

[bartl]

My proposal would be to follow the Saudi Nationalization scheme, but add MORE mandatory Foreign Direct Investment in BOTH physical and human infrastructure. (The Saudi nationalization of oil does not seek a state planned oil sector, like the old Iraq or Algeria, but private companies vying for contracts.) Training, education, and technology transfer needs to coincide with oil contracts the way China and India do with their FDI contracts. No more Brain Drain. No more simply buying western technology. The Middle east needs western technological training. It is happening but it needs to be quickened. The oil companies still get a share, but have to share more to foster growth in civil society as well as physical infrastructure.
Actually, that's pretty much what's going on now in Iraq.
Secondly, greatly increase democracy through at first strengthening civil society institutions and helping secular education for those who want it. (Saudi Arabia is NOT doing this at all. S.A. is focusing on the past and using guest workers to do all the real work.) The oil money should be used to integrate the Middle East into a Mediterranean economy. An increase in trade as well as an increase in skills would increase Europe and Africa's economies. Similarly, the influx of refugees to the EU by the Arab and African countries could be reduced if the third world economies were improving.
And I guess if you tell the leaders of the Middle Eastern countries this, they'll just say, "Hey! That's right! We'll stop keeping our countrymen in ignorance, while blaming the United States and Israel for their oppression, and show them how we're the ones who are oppressing them! We'll give up all our wealth and privilege, but our countrymen make memorials to us after they dismember us!" (not that it can never happen; Hailie Selassie tried it in Ethiopia).

[Inkthinker]

without political strings being attached to the purchase.

Internet text is incapable of conveying a proper disbelieving snicker. Needless to say, any government that arises in Iraq on our terms will have plenty of strings attached. If nothing else, there's the mighty huge one that reads, "we got you here, and we can take you out again."

[Steven Grant]

It would not have been eating crow for a couple of minutes; it would have meant the deaths of thousands of Americans, worldwide, because it would have cemented a message that the Americans will back down if you kill a few of them.
I'm confused. When exactly after war was threatened but prior to inception did Iraqis kill Americans to get us to back down?

So what you're saying is that even if what we threaten to do is something really stupid and unnecessary, as soon as we make the threat it becomes necessary because otherwise everyone will think we're weak?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hadn't we just invaded Afghanistan to successfully drive out the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda presence there? You don't think breaking off the hunt for Bin Laden (I know we haven't technically broken it off, but it stopped being our central focus) to go after a surrogate instead made us look weak and venal in the eyes of the world?

Anyway, I doubt your analysis. You're of the impression that acknowledging the UN's successful efforts and authorizing their continuation in lieu of war would have been some kind of death warrant on Americans. I doubt that would have been the case, and going ahead with the war has been a death warrant for thousands of Americans in any case. Do we look "strong" to the world now?

[Steven Grant]

Internet text is incapable of conveying a proper disbelieving snicker. Needless to say, any government that arises in Iraq on our terms will have plenty of strings attached. If nothing else, there's the mighty huge one that reads, "we got you here, and we can take you out again."
There's already plenty of discussion, at least in Iraq, of how in the "free" election they already had the original 58% majority of the Shi'ites, which would have given them full control of the government, abruptly shrank to 48% in the final tally, forcing a shaky coalition government. No vote tampering, of course, and we know this because the USA said so.

[Briareos]

I'm confused. When exactly after war was threatened but prior to inception did Iraqis kill Americans to get us to back down?

So what you're saying is that even if what we threaten to do is something really stupid and unnecessary, as soon as we make the threat it becomes necessary because otherwise everyone will think we're weak?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hadn't we just invaded Afghanistan to successfully drive out the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda presence there? You don't think breaking off the hunt for Bin Laden (I know we haven't technically broken it off, but it stopped being our central focus) to go after a surrogate instead made us look weak and venal in the eyes of the world?

Anyway, I doubt your analysis. You're of the impression that acknowledging the UN's successful efforts and authorizing their continuation in lieu of war would have been some kind of death warrant on Americans. I doubt that would have been the case, and going ahead with the war has been a death warrant for thousands of Americans in any case. Do we look "strong" to the world now?

For all we know Bin Laden could be a stain somewhere in a bomb crater we would never identify. The world knew our goal never centered on absolutely finding or killing Bin Laden. It was about getting rid of safe havens for them so they couldn't operate. They no longer have the use of Afghanistan to operate out of anymore in any practical way.

This reminds me people keep harping on the fact that we have fairly close relations with Saudi Arabia and that most of the 9/11 Hijackers came from there so shouldn't we be tougher on them. Does this mean that Spain should invade Morocco?

As far as how we look in the world I think most of the world just sees "Talliban defeated in Afghanistan and Saddam defeated in Iraq" Bin Laden is just a man his tools are being taken away from him rendering him powerless every day. It would be very nice to capture or kill him but the most important thing is to take away their ability to commit terrorists acts.

[Adam Crocker]

It would not have been eating crow for a couple of minutes; it would have meant the deaths of thousands of Americans, worldwide, because it would have cemented a message that the Americans will back down if you kill a few of them.

I'm afraid to see how failing to invade Iraq on a shoddy pretext would have actually led to this. All the examples you cited seem to involve terrorist groups and other countries actually killing or threatening Americans. (Assuming that Iran reference is referring to the hostage crisis.) I don't know of any examples Iraqis doing similiar, so I fail to see how this claim can be substantiated. Moreover, the invasion of Afghanistan over 9-11 and knocking out the Taliban had already presented just such a response you were advocating to a similar threat.

As it stands thousands of American troops are already dead because of the insurgency in Iraq while it looks as though the U.S. is willing to invade a country that does not have WMDs but will negotiated with one that has them. Not that I think invading North Korea would actually be feasible at this point, however that's how the U.S. is coming off as a result of this.

In terms of how the world views the U.S. over the invasion of Iraq it's worth noting that a panel of experts chosen by the administration in 2003 had found that America's image had dropped in many Muslim countries (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3156836.stm), even percipitously in those where most or half of the population had previously regarded it well. The report also acknowledged that these changes were due to perception of American foreign policy such as the invasion of Iraq.

[jonahhex]

What they are doing is buying the oil at a competitive rate, without political strings being attached to the purchase.

Political strings need to be attached much like China, India, Vietnam, etc. attach poliitical strings to foreign direct investment. Otherwise, you get a situation like Venezuela where the oil companies were only giving 1% to the government of Venezuala, and now Chavez wishes to raise the stake to 10% to help for education, housing, land reform, etc. Or Nigeria's fairly regular strike waves by the oil workers which are mostly about housing, education, and other public infrastructure deals, not about wage hikes. OR in Bolivia where the Indians wish to nationalize the oil industry and re-negotitiate the oil contracts as the Indians of Bolivia are in terrible poverty due to Government controlled by the oil and other big business interests than in the common people. The Indians have overthrown two governments in the last 18 months, and the country is on the brink of civil war. No political strings even if it means war, huh?

[jonahhex]

Actually, that's pretty much what's going on now in Iraq.


I guess we live on different planets. In Bartl's earth, things are going well in Iraq. Everything is justy peachy. No Brain Drain. Technological development is rapidly booming in Iraq. Prosperity just around the corner.

On my earth, Iraq was invaded on the cheap with less forces than were required to occupy the nation. The U.S. had no post-war plan to re-build Iraq. The U.S. protected the Iraqi Oil Ministry post-Saddam, but did not bother to protect much else. This allowed a hell alot of looting, and gave the Ba'ath loyalists time to re-group. "Bring it on" G.W. Bush says, and well the Iraqi opposition did.

At the current moment in time, Iraq has over 30% unemployment. I have heard unemployment may even be higher. The economy is not just broken; It is next to shattered.

O yeah, making Negroponte ambassador is horrifying considering is record in Honduras. I believe the appointment of Negroponte is a sign that this administration is going to use heavy handed tactics that will escalate into a greater civil war.

Brain Drain is occurring in Iraq, not because of direct policies, but because of fear of civil war. 60,000 Assyrians and Chaldian christians have left for Syria out of fear of Islamists (and annoyance at U.S. born again christians trying to convert them). Turkomens have been fleeing in the thousands to Iran and Turkey. They are terrorified of the Kurds. this is not counting the many others who have left?

Does anyone have figures on Iraqi emigration since the Iraqi war started?


And I guess if you tell the leaders of the Middle Eastern countries this, they'll just say, "Hey! That's right! We'll stop keeping our countrymen in ignorance, while blaming the United States and Israel for their oppression, and show them how we're the ones who are oppressing them! We'll give up all our wealth and privilege, but our countrymen make memorials to us after they dismember us!" (not that it can never happen; Hailie Selassie tried it in Ethiopia).

Hey, Bartl you asked for concrete proposals as soon as you get one you make fun of it. The ideas I presented are really condensed ideas presented by Arabs and Africans at the world social forum and other places of public discourse by NGOs and other do-gooders. Of course, it is not going to be easy. But just as the 1920s to 1960s in the U.S. saw the slow and gradual overthrow and reform of the Jim crow states and the corrupt big city political machines, the middle east is going to go through alot of different experiments on their way to modernity. Democracitization certainly was not easy in the U.S! It will be as difficult if not moreso in the 22 Arab states.

Democracy is always a struggle. it should never be taken for granted. Gains for a more open life are made in asserting the power of the weak, like the African american civil rights movement in the U.S. south or the ANC in South Africa.

Most middle eastern countries, like africa, have only been independent since 1950s some even later. After a thousand years of Mongolian, Turkish, and European rule, Arabs are just learning to govern themselves.

I wish I could go into greater detail. For conservatives interested in the topic of democraticizing traditional structures, I recommend any of the books by Ghana's leading intellectual George Ayittey, and for leftists/liberals I recommend the Ugandan Mahmoud Mamdani's Citizen and Subject. There work is relevant even outside Africa.


And I guess if you tell the leaders of the Middle Eastern countries this, they'll just say, "Hey! That's right! We'll stop keeping our countrymen in ignorance, while blaming the United States and Israel for their oppression"

Well, the last 50 years of U.S. bullying has really helped put us dirty rag-heads in place. --Sarcasm aside, no matter how the Middle East is run, democracy or dictatorship, the resentment towards the U.S. and Israel is going to continue. there are genuine reasons for the anger.

[jonahhex]

Last post tonight, I swear. Found this on the web. Any comments?

Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq? * 53321 responses


Yes95%

No5%

Not a scientifically valid survey.
Updated: 7:11 p.m. ET June 16, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/

[CaptChucky]

I'm getting tired of "misled." He lied. We're still letting the Republicans choose our words for us.


But still, what a great non-scientific poll!

[bartl]

I'm confused. When exactly after war was threatened but prior to inception did Iraqis kill Americans to get us to back down?They were shooting at American planes with great regularity, breaking the ceasefire they had signed.
So what you're saying is that even if what we threaten to do is something really stupid and unnecessary, as soon as we make the threat it becomes necessary because otherwise everyone will think we're weak?
Out of the various states that were supporting terrorists, Iraq was, in many ways, the ideal place for a next step. It was the easiest place to insert a democratic government out of the choices available, and was strategically well placed in the center of other terrorist states. George Bush had already stated that the United States was going to bring down ALL the terrorists, and the states that supported them. He did not say that we were going to do them all at the same time. In terms of efficiency, Iraq was the best place to go after Afghanistan. So it was neither stupid nor unnecessary; what WAS stupid and unnecessary was not making this clear enough to the American people, and dwelling on the WMD bullshit.

[bartl]

In terms of how the world views the U.S. over the invasion of Iraq it's worth noting that a panel of experts chosen by the administration in 2003 had found that America's image had dropped in many Muslim countries (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3156836.stm), even percipitously in those where most or half of the population had previously regarded it well. The report also acknowledged that these changes were due to perception of American foreign policy such as the invasion of Iraq.
The United States tried for decades to make them like us. They will NEVER like us. The next best thing is to make them afraid of us; they were not before, and they are now.

[badMike]

The United States tried for decades to make them like us. They will NEVER like us. The next best thing is to make them afraid of us; they were not before, and they are now.I find this attitude absolutely revolting. And I'm sick about hearing about "they." Glad you find it comforting to send thousands of U.S. servicemen to their deaths so you can feel good about yourself.

[Michael P]

[Iraq] was the easiest place to insert a democratic government out of the choices available
Shit, I'd hate to see a hard place.

[WatsonGlenn]

I find this attitude absolutely revolting. And I'm sick about hearing about "they." Glad you find it comforting to send thousands of U.S. servicemen to their deaths so you can feel good about yourself.


Thats an unfair characterization of a postion that is logical and in my opinion correct. He never said he was happy about people getting killed.

[NatGertler]

It was the easiest place to insert a democratic government out of the choices available, and was strategically well placed in the center of other terrorist states. George Bush had already stated that the United States was going to bring down ALL the terrorists, and the states that supported them.Okay, so we've inserted a democratic government. But we seem to have skipped that bringing down the terrorists part. By the looks of things, we've brought up the terrorists, increased their numbers.... and brought about the deaths of far more people than were killed on September 11th in doing so.
So it was neither stupid nor unnecessary;It's hard to judge anything so ineffective as being either necessary or wise. Of course, it comes along with a lot of death, so it also has that strong tinge of evil to it.

[bartl]

I find this attitude absolutely revolting. And I'm sick about hearing about "they." Glad you find it comforting to send thousands of U.S. servicemen to their deaths so you can feel good about yourself.
When the last liberal is hung, he will donate the money to buy the rope from the last capitalist.

[bartl]

Shit, I'd hate to see a hard place.
Actually, the best place, although, because it's the best place, it was not a reasonable option, would be Egypt. The local government structure in Egypt is already democratic in nature, so it's not a large leap for a national government. On the other hand, it's already heading in that way without any help.

Really hard places would include Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and U.S. friendly Kuwait. Iran and Jordan have definite posibilities, though.

Afghanistan is a very strange case. Until the Taliban, it was thought that it was impossible for Afghanistan to have an effective national government, as it consisted of fiercely independent tribal groups (the Soviet Union came to the conclusion that the only way to conquer Afghanistan is to kill every man, woman and child in the country). This actually makes a republican form of government somewhat feasible.

[bartl]

It's hard to judge anything so ineffective as being either necessary or wise. Of course, it comes along with a lot of death, so it also has that strong tinge of evil to it.
There were a number of major blunders made, some of them totally inexcusable. I have already mentioned the concentration on the WMD's without emphasizing the other reasons for the invasion. Also were taking an army that was in transition, and treating it as if the transition were complete, and not recognizing that Iraq had performed a retreat and regroup strategy when virtually every military analyst at the time was screaming it out.

[badMike]

When the last liberal is hung, he will donate the money to buy the rope from the last capitalist.So, liberal equals socialist, hunh? Another feat of depth-defying logic.

[jonahhex]

Actually, the best place, although, because it's the best place, it was not a reasonable option, would be Egypt. The local government structure in Egypt is already democratic in nature, so it's not a large leap for a national government. On the other hand, it's already heading in that way without any help.

Really hard places would include Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and U.S. friendly Kuwait. Iran and Jordan have definite posibilities, though.


Bull! Syria only seems worse than Egypt due to U.S. hatred of the country.

Egypt and Syria have nearly identical local and national forms of governance. Both constitutionally adopted their governmental forms under Nasser, and Syria as Egypt has remained mostly true to that form. The 1970 Correctionist revolution in Syria did not change the form of governance, but placed the Ba'ath military over the Ba'ath Party. This was something Nasser did not have to worry about since he was the head of the military. It was also designed to counter the founder of the Ba'ath, Christian, Michael Aflaq's move to the left and his move to Iraq. In Both, Intifah (openess) have been tried in 1973 in Egypt and 2000 in Syria. The new openness was retreated from in Syria due to the sabre ratteling of the U.S. Political Intifah was also retreated from Egypt after the 1975- 78 "market land reforms" when the peasants protested the increase in rent and privatization of land. Sadat killed hundreds if not thousands of protesting peasants. Economic Intifah remained but it would be more than a decade before anyone would try to raise the rent on the land or "redistribute" land to the market. Many Egyptians still believe that markets in land are a betrayal to the Nasserist Revolution.

With the assassination of mass murder Anwar Sadat, the military regained more of a veto power, like the Correctionist revolution in Syria, but without control of the then mostly privatized state sectors. Both have "legalized" new political parties in the last ten years. In terms of respect for Palestinians, christians and druze, Syria has a much more open and tolerant society. The Copts in Egypt have it really bad. Torture is routine in both.
The rate of prison incaceration is much, much lower in Syria than Egypt. In the middle east, the rate of incarceration I believe can be partly indicative of the amount of legitimacy a government has.

Jordan and Tunisia have the most open free speech and freest publications.

[jonahhex]

So, liberal equals socialist, hunh? Another feat of depth-defying logic.
well for the U.S. right, liberal equals socialist equals communist. They used to call us PINKO so as to inflate gay with communist.

[Paul McEnery]

First of all, the terrorist movement DOES control quite a bit of oil (Iran, for example), and several countries were on the precipice (Saudi Arabia still is). However, the oil companies are NOT taking the oil away from the indigenous governments. What they are doing is buying the oil at a competitive rate, without political strings being attached to the purchase.
Bart, you're full of it.

Yes, the oil companies, with the collusion if not active participation of the US government, have exactly taken the oil away from governments.

That's exactly what they did in Iran. That's exactly what they're doing in Iraq. That's exactly why they tried to take down Chavez.

Moreover, it's exactly what they're doing with African national resources.

Extra bonus points:

NO American gets to point the finger at ANY national government and call them terrorist. America is the number one existent and continuous nation to have murdered citizens of another nation in order to get what they want.

The number of dead through our desire to steal Iraq's oil is small compared to the number or dead in Africa, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador et bloody cetera.

What corporate America does is kill people to make a profit.

If it makes you feel better to pretend that's not the case, if it makes you feel better to point the finger at Iran and pretend they're a terrorist nation, if it makes you feel better to believe that Cheney and Halliburton aren't prepared to kill to make money... well, you go right ahead.

That delusion simply feeds the criminals who've got this country by the throat, and are currently bankrupting the country to scam the last bit of money they can get out of it before they shove it down the toilet.

You can make excuses for them, or you can sort your head out and build the future with the rest of us.

Your choice.

[Paul McEnery]

When the last liberal is hung, he will donate the money to buy the rope from the last capitalist.
Tell that to Joe Hill.

[bartl]

Bull! Syria only seems worse than Egypt due to U.S. hatred of the country.

Egypt and Syria have nearly identical local and national forms of governance. Both constitutionally adopted their governmental forms under Nasser, and Syria as Egypt has remained mostly true to that form.I specified the reason why Egypt is better is because of the largely democratic LOCAL government structure, not the national one.

Jordan and Tunisia have the most open free speech and freest publications.
I did list Jordan as a "second tier" country. It's ruled by royalty, but has a lot more internal freedom than most Arab countries.

[bartl]

well for the U.S. right, liberal equals socialist equals communist. They used to call us PINKO so as to inflate gay with communist.
That's the first I heard of that one. However, I am curious as to why anybody might have thought that I was making that distinction.

[bartl]

Bart, you're full of it.
But then you say...
NO American gets to point the finger at ANY national government and call them terrorist. America is the number one existent and continuous nation to have murdered citizens of another nation in order to get what they want.
Hmmmm.....

[bartl]

Tell that to Joe Hill.
The Wobblies had a sort of love/hate relationship with the Communists, loving the ideals, but hating the practices.

[Paul McEnery]

The Wobblies had a sort of love/hate relationship with the Communists, loving the ideals, but hating the practices.
Ignoring the point.

The US government murdered Joe Hill.

The US government murdered a lot of people in the countries I mentioned, some of whom I knew personally.

The US government has a lot of bloody nerve calling anyone on the entire planet a terrorist.

And the same goes for any US citizen.

Especially a US citizen who acts as an apologist for this administration.

We are no longer at a point where it's okay to make polite conversation and split hairs about issues of politics.

We have a government that thinks it's okay to kill people to obtain mineral resources.

We have a government that thinks it's okay to destroy civil and economic liberties that took centuries to build up.

You can back them. Or you can work to get rid of them.

At this point, these are the only two options.

[bartl]

The US government murdered Joe Hill.
There's more evidence that Joe Hill was actually guilty of the murder of which he was convicted than there is that the U.S. government was behind the scenes at his conviction.

[WatsonGlenn]

You can back them. Or you can work to get rid of them.

I'm going to back up the county that does the most to protect lives and democracy around the world. I am going to back up the country that exports more food than any other county in history. I going to back up the country that defeated communism and fascism in the 20th century. I'm going to back up the country that gives more charity to the rest of the world that any other country in history. I am going to back up the only country in history that leave a country better off after defeating it than it was before.

I am going to back up the one county, without which, the world would be under the thumb of dictorship.

The bottom line is this. If you want to side with those that want to kill or enslave our children go ahead. But not me.

[Charles RB]

I am going to back up the one county, without which, the world would be under the thumb of dictorship.

So, the USSR, who was the nation soaking up huge amounts of German resources which gave Britain & America a huge opening? Or Britain, the nation fighting Germany and Japan for three years before America entered the Second World War?

Because if you're trying to claim America is the sole nation that won WW2... well, them's fighting words.

And if you're not refering to WW2- did you miss all the dictatorships that have been around despite America's presence, are around now and those that were helped & supported by America? Hard to claim "without us, the world would be under the thumb of dictatorship" when a lot of is & has been and you helped with some of it.

And then there's the fact that Paul said "government", as in the present one. While you went on about "country". One is not the other.

[Inkthinker]

I'm going to back up the county that does the most to protect lives and democracy around the world.

Arguably not America, which has set up plenty of dictators, and continues to maintain friendships and alliances with many more. Hey, in Darfur there's a genocide going down... but their leaders are shaking hands with GW. We sure are hard on those bastards, they know their days are up!

I am going to back up the country that exports more food than any other county in history.

America pays farmers NOT to grow food... food which could be exported to other countries. Our old, expired canned goods shouldn't oughta count as charity.


I going to back up the country that defeated communism and fascism in the 20th century.

Communism defeated itself. And facism... you are aware that America very nearly joined the war on the side of Germany, right? And even considering that we DID join the Allies, we helped defeat facism, we didn't bust in there solo-style and get all, "yo, Hitler! Eat this, biatch, AMERICA is in da house, now!"

And besides, neither communism nor facism is defeated... Communist nations still exist, and fascist dictators still rule countries.

You can't "defeat facism and communism" any more than you can "defeat terrorism"... they're concepts goddammit, not entities. They will always exist so long as people seek to find ways to place power over many in the hands of the few.

I'm going to back up the country that gives more charity to the rest of the world that any other country in history.

Per capita, America gives almost the least. We have some very wealthy institutions that contribute charity, but when placed as a percentage of our actual wealth, we shouldn't oughta toot how much we give.

I am going to back up the only country in history that leave a country better off after defeating it than it was before.

Not every country, not always. Hell, we don't always win, for that matter. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia... Iraq...

I am going to back up the one country, without which, the world would be under the thumb of dictorship.

No such ONE coutnry, howevermuch you'd like to believe otherwise. This is the sort of arrogant bullshit that makes us the bastards of the schoolyard.

Without Britain, Russia and the rest of the Allied nations, WW2 would have been lost. It surely didn't hurt that the struggle had gone on for three years before we stepped in as a nation. As it was, we only won when we managed to race to the finish first and develop the most horrifying weapon of mass destruction the world has ever seen, and then used it twice on cities full of civilians. Yaaay, America. We bomb children to win. Woo-hoo.

Hey, that's what war is. Children burn. Innocents suffer.

But don't expect me to be proud of it.

[Inkthinker]

And then there's the fact that Paul said "government", as in the present one. While you went on about "country". One is not the other.


Well said!

"Patriotism is to love ones country all the time, and the government when they deserve it."

-Mark Twain

[Wig of Doom]

we didn't bust in there solo-style and get all, "yo, Hitler! Eat this, biatch, AMERICA is in da house, now!"


Ah, but it sure is enjoyable to imagine Roosevelt saying that in one of his fireside chats.

[WatsonGlenn]

I don't think I will back up the USSR. The country that killed 40 million of its own inhabitants in th e20th century. I won't back the country that wimped out of WWI and then sided with Hitler at the beginning of WWII and attack Poland and Finland. I don't think I will back the country that only exists due to the charity of the USA's Lend Lease act and the food we sent over for so many years.

During the Cold War the USA was the only power that stood up to an avowedly expansionist USSR. We sometimes had to fight the greater evil by supporting lesser evils around the world. Its stinks but its reality. I don't know where you are from but if you are complaining about the way in which the USA protected you from fascism and communism that seems ungratefull to me.

[WatsonGlenn]

Arguably not America, which has set up plenty of dictators, and continues to maintain friendships and alliances with many more. Hey, in Darfur there's a genocide going down... but their leaders are shaking hands with GW. We sure are hard on those bastards, they know their days are up!

What other country has "arguably' destroyed as many dictatorships as the USA?

America pays farmers NOT to grow food... food which could be exported to other countries. Our old, expired canned goods shouldn't oughta count as charity.

American food feeds large parts of the world. I'm sorry if you quibble with the way in which we do it.

Communism defeated itself.

That is incorrect. It was the USA and our determination to stop the spread of communism through the use of our military and our production capacity that ended communism in the 20th century in the USSR. Powerful cultures like the USSR fall for two reasons. Internal and external pressure. We provided the external pressure.

And facism... you are aware that America very nearly joined the war on the side of Germany, right?

That is a damn lie.

And besides, neither communism nor fascism is defeated... Communist nations still exist, and fascist dictators still rule countries. >>>

True enough but they exist as discredited ideologies with no real future. We won.

Per capita, America gives almost the least. We have some very wealthy institutions that contribute charity, but when placed as a percentage of our actual wealth, we shouldn't oughta toot how much we give. >>

America gives more that any other nation on Earth. The World is a better place for the presence of the USA. Statistic that measure per capita spending never look at the complete total given by the American government, American individuals, America, churches and other organizations. They also never look at military aid.

Without Britain, Russia and the rest of the Allied nations, WW2 would have been lost.

Thats true but Russia sided with Germany at the beginning of the war and Britain was clearly on the ropes. I don't discount the bravery of England and Russia but it was their war and we came in to help them not the other way around.

[Charles RB]

I don't think I will back up the USSR.

I note you're not saying anything about Britain.

During the Cold War the USA was the only power that stood up to an avowedly expansionist USSR.

During the Cold War, Britain and most of the Commenwealth magically disappeared along with every non-American country that was stood against the USSR, of course.

We sometimes had to fight the greater evil by supporting lesser evils around the world.

Read: America supported tyrants, terrorists and other nasty fuckers responsible for screwing up entire countries, but that was OK because they were against Communism.

Like hell it was.

if you are complaining about the way in which the USA protected you from fascism and communism that seems ungratefull to me.

Because Britain is a wuss of a nation that never did anything itself during WW2 and needed defending from the good ol' US. Right. :rolleyes:

And y'know what? I think quite a lot of people are within their rights to complain about how the USA protected them from Communism when it led to the USA supporting vicious thugs and tyrants that screwed them over. Would you seriously expect them to show gratitude for that?

[WatsonGlenn]

I note you're not saying anything about Britain.

GB is a great country but they were no match for the Axis.

During the Cold War, Britain and most of the Commenwealth magically disappeared along with every non-American country that was stood against the USSR, of course.

Are you denying that the USA protected Europe during the Cold War almost single handidly? Wow!

Read: America supported tyrants, terrorists and other nasty fuckers responsible for screwing up entire countries, but that was OK because they were against Communism. Like hell it was.

Yeah actually it is. The USA was fighting an evil almost beyond comprehension. And evil that threatened the whole world. Sorry if you don't like the way we saved your ass. I wonder where you get that sort of gall.

Because Britain is a wuss of a nation that never did anything itself during WW2 and needed defending from the good ol' US. Right. :rolleyes:

You said that not me.

And y'know what? I think quite a lot of people are within their rights to complain about how the USA protected them from Communism when it led to the USA supporting vicious thugs and tyrants that screwed them over. Would you seriously expect them to show gratitude for that?

We did what we had to do. I personally do not want ot hear Europeans complain. Its unseemly to look that sort of gift hourse in the mouth.

[Charles RB]

GB is a great country but they were no match for the Axis.

Well, if you ignore lasting three years against the Luftwaffe and fighting the Japanese before America & Russia entered. And the Luftwaffe casualities being, IIRC, higher than the RAF countries.


Are you denying that the USA protected Europe during the Cold War almost single handidly?

No shit. You didn't protect Europe almost single-handedly during the Cold War. For one, the countries in Europe were doing stuff to protect themselves. Two, America and the Western European powers both sat on their arses as the USSR annexed big chunks of Eastern Europe instead of leaving after they'd booted the Nazis out- if they were protected by us, that's a very interesting interpretation of protecting.

The USA was fighting an evil almost beyond comprehension. And evil that threatened the whole world.

This is incorrect, actually. The USSR, contrary to Cold War belief, was not single-handedly directing all Communist outbreaks worldwide

Sorry if you don't like the way we saved your ass. I wonder where you get that sort of gall.

Well, if I was living in a country were America propped-up a dictator, I'd be getting the gall because you fucking propped up a dictator in MY COUNTRY. You can't tell me that was the only way of stopping Communism.


You said that not me.

You implied it, which is both insulting and historically inaccurate- the USSR had a massive part to play in "saving our ass" by holding out for so long and forcing Germany to fight on multiple fronts. Do you really want to see how World War 2 might have gone if Russia hadn't held out for so long almost independently, sucking out German resources?

I personally do not want ot hear Europeans complain.

Tough. We have morals and ethics, so yes people are going to complain about atrocities done in the name of stopping Communism.

[Adam Crocker]

I don't think I will back up the USSR. The country that killed 40 million of its own inhabitants in th e20th century.

Which is fine, but that doesn't change Charles' point that the USSR did a significant amount of the fighting in WWII.

I won't back the country that wimped out of WWI...

However Russia couldn't realistically remain in the war at that point. For one thing, the Russian army was getting beaten badly by the Germans all throughout the war. The moral of the average soldier was significantly demoralized and furthermore the army was plagued by mass desertions.

Moreover, the economy virtually collasped as a result of the war. Millions of peasants had been taken out of production from Russia's primarily agricultural economy (which was significantly less advanced than many other nations) and there was a failure to properly adjust to the war conditions through planning on the part of the Tsarist government. And that led to food shortages which caused unrest in both the cities and the countryside that brought down the Tsar. Prime Minister Alexander Kerensky's attempts to stay in the war following the Tsar's collapse were virtually futile considering the economy and the disintegrating army.

[bartl]

Read: America supported tyrants, terrorists and other nasty fuckers responsible for screwing up entire countries, but that was OK because they were against Communism.

Like hell it was.
I'm curious: With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, what SHOULD the U.S. government had done?

[WatsonGlenn]

Well, if you ignore lasting three years against the Luftwaffe and fighting the Japanese before America & Russia entered. And the Luftwaffe casualities being, IIRC, higher than the RAF countries.

GB did a great job of holding out but are you really saying they could have done so without US aid. If so then no one would agree with you. The Britsh would have literally starved to death without US aid and that is before Pearl Harbor.

the countries in Europe were doing stuff to protect themselves.

No way. Not even close. The US put military bases in Europe, rebuilt the European economy and protected Europe with our nuclear umbrella. That is what stopped the Soviets.

This is incorrect, actually. The USSR, contrary to Cold War belief, was not single-handedly directing all Communist outbreaks worldwide.

Thats true but the USSR was the major champion of communism and did expend a great deal of effort expanding it.

Well, if I was living in a country were America propped-up a dictator, I'd be getting the gall because you fucking propped up a dictator in MY COUNTRY. You can't tell me that was the only way of stopping Communism.

And since you don't where do you get the gall? You should just be grateful the USA protected your country instead of blaming us using the freedoms we provided.

The USSR had a massive part to play in "saving our ass" by holding out for so long and forcing Germany to fight on multiple fronts.

The USSR did not "save" the USA. Hitler barely threatened the USA. Stalin worked with Hitler to invade Poland and Finland. The Soviets brought the devistation of WWII on themselves. They are partially respnsable for WWI as well. The fact the USA keeps pulling their fat out of the fire shows what kind of people we are. The USSR lost a huge portion of Russian land in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. We gave it back to them after WWI. No need to thank us.

Do you really want to see how World War 2 might have gone if Russia hadn't held out for so long almost independently, sucking out German resources?

I would like to see how it would have gone if the USSR had not allied with Hilter in the first place attacking Poland and Finland in the traitorous together in the foolish alliance. And it would be interesting to see how long the USSR would have lasted without the Lend Lease act and American charity.

People are going to complain about atrocities done in the name of stopping Communism.

And they will do so while enjoying the libery the USA provided the world.

[WatsonGlenn]

Which is fine, but that doesn't change Charles' point that the USSR did a significant amount of the fighting in WWII.

And I never said they did'nt. I said they could not have won the war, they helped start by the way, without the unselfish aid of the USA.

However Russia couldn't realistically remain in the war at that point. For one thing, the Russian army was getting beaten badly by the Germans all throughout the war. The moral of the average soldier was significantly demoralized and furthermore the army was plagued by mass desertions.>>

Thats true. After playing a big part in starting the WWI Russia lost to the Germans and they lost a big hunk of land because of it. We gave them that land back after the war, and what thanks did we get? None.

As for not being physically able to fight the Germans you could not tell it by the the vicious manner in which the Russians fought their own civil war from 1919 to I think about 1922. Why is it they were too exhasted and weak to fight the Germans but they were plenty strong enough to fight each other?

[Charles RB]

GB did a great job of holding out but are you really saying they could have done so without US aid.

No. I'm saying that claiming the war was only won because of American aid is a load of shite. The USSR fighting Germany can't be ignored, and neither can the fighting Britain was doing before America got involved.

No way. Not even close. The US put military bases in Europe

Alongside sizable European militaries, and with NATO being formed around those European militaries as well as America.

rebuilt the European economy

Not solely on your own- Europe was involved in rebuilding its own economies (ECSC and EEC? Remember that). What America did do was help jump-start that with cash donations, which weren't evenly distributed- Italy didn't get much, for example.

You should just be grateful the USA protected your country instead of blaming us using the freedoms we provided.

Yes, the entire history of the the Second World War and the Cold War can be boiled down to "Captain America saved you all, so shut up and stop complaining". You arrogant little snot.

And no, I won't "be grateful" about some of the nastier things that got done by America. Setting up dictators and terrorists does not provide freedoms, it removes them.

The USSR did not "save" the USA.

Oh yeah? No USSR holding out against Nazi Germany means no fighting on two fronts. No fighting on two fronts means Britain and America lose a key strategic advantage that they exploited against Germany. No key strategic advantage means more soldiers dead, greater economic damage and possibly a longer war. It could arguably, when you consider how much of an impact the Russian defence had on the Nazi war machine, have led to the outcome of the war being different.

They are partially respnsable for WWI as well.

The Soviet Union was partially responsible for WW1? They weren't even around until 1917!

The fact the USA keeps pulling their fat out of the fire shows what kind of people we are. The USSR lost a huge portion of Russian land in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. We gave it back to them after WWI. No need to thank us.

That wasn't a "oh, let's be nice to the Russians because we're lovely people" gesture, that was part of the Versailles Treaty taking away all the territory Germany had gained during the war, as well as land that had been part of Germany before the war. This was also a treaty that had other nations beside America drafting it.

I can't believe you actually have gone and claimed "look how nice we were to Russia!" because of something that happened during a massive removal of land from Germany that was done mainly to leave the country weakened. Hell, this is me assuming you're right about the Russian territory being included in Versailles anyway, which according to Adam Flex is wrong...



And they will do so while enjoying the libery the USA provided the world.

...OK, you don't seem to get the whole "America helped prop up dictators" thing. Dictators do not equal liberty.

[Charles RB]

I'm curious: With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, what SHOULD the U.S. government had done?

In general? Supporting up-and-coming democracies and encouraging them to buddy up economically & militarily, so if one's attacked it has mates to get involved. Granted, this is simplistic and might not have worked everywhere, but it would've been preferable to what was done.

[WatsonGlenn]

You arrogant little snot.


Conversation over.

[Charles RB]

Well, how do you expect me to reply when your general argument is "you should shut up and kiss our ass"? The term "Allies" did not mean "America and its wussy comic-relief sidekicks", it meant equal partners.

[bartl]

However Russia couldn't realistically remain in the war at that point. For one thing, the Russian army was getting beaten badly by the Germans all throughout the war. The moral of the average soldier was significantly demoralized and furthermore the army was plagued by mass desertions.>>

Will you please stop with the text boxes, and use the quote tag? They are EXTREMELY annoying.

[Adam Crocker]

Thats true. After playing a big part in starting the WWI Russia lost to the Germans and they lost a big hunk of land because of it. We gave them that land back after the war, and what thanks did we get? None.

Er, the U.S. did? Last I checked Germany's defeat in the war led to the Soviet government repudiating the treaty and winning back some of the Territory in the ensuing Russian Civil War. (Which was most of Ukraine, but not the rest...lucky for Poland, Finland, Belarus, and the Polish-districts of Ukiraine I suppose...well at least until World War II.)

In any case the Allies didn't make any effort to return the land to Russia. What they did do was to try and send military aid to the White armies in order to try and get Russia back into the war and make sure the Bolshevik's didn't stay in power. So I'm not sure why the Bolsheviks would bother to say "thanks." (Or for that matter why the Allies would give back that territory in the first place.)

As for not being physically able to fight the Germans you could not tell it by the the vicious manner in which the Russians fought their own civil war from 1919 to I think about 1922. Why is it they were too exhasted and weak to fight the Germans but they were plenty strong enough to fight each other?

That's just if, the civil war was fought by two factions that used significantly brutal measures to keep their armies in the field and dissent under wraps. This is particularly the case with Bolsheviks who introduced modern state terror with the inauguration of the Russia's political police, the Cheka. (Which went through many names throughout its existence, including the KGB in the 1950s to the collapse of the USSR.)

The end result of it? And estimated 9 million dead directly because of it, several millions more due to the effects of the war, including a massive famine in 1921 that required the Soviet Government to make an international appeal to aid. The Soviets' kept the war going by establishing a command economy that ground the Russian economy to a halt by the end of it, with land under cultivation in 1921 sinking to 62% of that prior to the war and the harvest yield only 37% of the normal figure. (This was partly due to grain requisitions by both the Bolsheviks and the Whites leading peasants to refuse to cultivate, especially since they'd end up starving anyways.)

[WatsonGlenn]

Er, the U.S. did? Last I checked Germany's defeat in the war led to the Soviet government repudiating the treaty and winning back some of the Territory in the ensuing Russian Civil War.

Yeah its convieniant how Russia bravely 'repudiated' the treaty they signed with Germany after the Allies defeated the Central Powers. Almost as brave as all the Iraqi protesters out on the street now that Saddam is gone.

The Bolsheviks should have said "thanks" because the Allies beat the country that took the Ukraine away from Russia in the first place. Do you think Germany would have give it back if they had won? Do you think the USSR would have been able to 'repudiate' the treaty then?

The common claim is that Russia was too weak to fight the Germans. I agree that they were weak, but they were not too weak to fight each other. So that is a weak arguement, IMO.

[WatsonGlenn]

Will you please stop with the text boxes, and use the quote tag? They are EXTREMELY annoying.

I did not like having to type (quote). It was easier just to click the brackets on the top of the page. But I see now that I can click the little word ballon so you get your wish.

[Adam Crocker]

The Bolsheviks should have said "thanks" because the Allies beat the country that took the Ukraine away form Russia in the first place. Do you think Germany would have give it back if they had won?

But why would they in any case? As I stated in order to get Russia back into the war the Allies sent military aid to the White Armies in hopes of ousting the Bolsheviks. This was before Germany surrendered and it seemed like it would win the war. The simple fact of the matter is that the Bolshevik would not have said "thanks" to the Allies because the Allied powers had supported their enemies and thus were effectively hostile powers in that sense.

The claim was the Russia was too weak to fight the Germans. I agree that they were week, but they were not too weak to fight each other.

Well at least not without significant coercion by their leaders to keep their armies fighting. I'm not sure most ordinary Russians were really motivated to fight for either side in the war, save that peasants didn't want a restoration so they gave just enough popular support (or acquiesence) to the Bolsheviks to allow them to win and then rebelled once the Whites were defeated. (There were agrarian uprisings all over Russia following the defeat of the White Armies.)

[Steven Grant]

As I mentioned somewhere here a few weeks back, Chamberlain's treaty with Germany that "surrendered" the Sudatenland (aka Czechoslovakia) to Germany wasn't a "capitulation" at all, but a ploy aimed at aiming Germany east and toward the Soviet Union, which Chamberlain (and most of the British ruling class, including Churchill, who was a raving anti-Communist who bristled later that the necessity of doing business with Soviet Russia) considered a much greater threat than Hitler and, in any case, his idea was to have Germany and Russia expend their resources battling each other. So it was essentially an act of war targeting Stalin and using Hitler as the weapon. It's not so much that Russians were "weak" and incapable of battling Germany, but Germany had spent close to a decade gearing up for the first really technological war. Russians fought Russians, but most Russians were armed with pitchforks. Russia in 1938 really wasn't prepared to wage a war at the level of technology that Germany was. Stalin, whatever else can be said of him (like he was a monster and a monomaniac), wasn't stupid; he knew war with Germany was coming sooner or later. His treaty with Hitler was specifically designed to buy time to better bring the Soviet Union up to something resembling technological parity with Germany, something they never really managed to achieve (though the AK-47 was a big jump forward) but they achieved it to the level that sheer numbers, which advantage Russia always held over Germany, could pick up the slack. It also jabbed a nasty little stick in Chamberlain's eye and turned his whole plan around; without having to worry immediately about Russia on his Eastern flank, Hitler was able to turn his gaze on Western Europe, putting England to war with Germany before Russia was.

I'm not sure why Russia's considerable contribution to the Allied war effort can't be recognized without "downplaying" Stalin's monstrous evil. The fact is that Russia lost an awful lot of people stopping Hitler in the East and pretty much crushed the Germany army on that front without much direct military aid from us, and the Russian people very heroically spent a lot of their lives to do it, and they're traditionally patriotic enough (though why, I couldn't begin to guess, considering the Russian treatment of the common man for centuries) to have been more than willing to do it without prodding from Stalin. The Americans had to race to get into Berlin before the Russians did, and the Germans to some extent helped them because they didn't want the Russians to claim the place either.

Like I say, it doesn't make Stalin less of a monster or a more admirable guy, but from one perspective Russia made it possible for the Allies to win in the West, because had Hitler been able to divert those troops that were inextricably bogged down in the East to the Western fronts, the course of the war would likely have been considerably different, given that in several major battles the Allies only held on by the skin of their teeth as it was. Had Hitler been able to divert his Eastern armies to the West, the liberation of Europe would have been damn near impossible, at least within the time frame of WWII. (As we understand it in the West; in the East, WWII didn't really end until 1952, when the last Nazi enclaves in Eastern Europe -- some of them being financed by that point by American money -- threw in the towel. In some ways it's still going on there; much of the animosity of Serbia toward Croatia had nothing to do with Muslims but with bitter memories of the war years, when Croatian Nazis -- reportedly more extreme even than Hitler and his crew and allied with him -- attempted a brutal war of extermination against pro-Allies Serbia.)

[Inkthinker]

You know, it occurs to me that we got seriously sidetracked here.

What the US has done in the past is not what's important. We did bad things, but I do believe we did much more good, and the world is a better place for that.

What we did in the past.

Has nothing to do with what we are doing now. Our government is by its nature liquid and malleable, and it has changed, and the government now is not like any government we've had since the 1950's, when McCarthy went on a witch hunt for "commies".

We are not an infallible nation, and I believe the Downing Papers (which is what we started talking about) prove that whatever good we have done, we are doing more evil than good right NOW.

Let's not get distracted, that's a bad tactic of both sides. Let's stay on the focus... is what America is doing NOW, and has been doing since the turn of THIS century, worthy of the pride and respect that we earned doing good deeds in the last century?

I do not think that it is, and we should be ashamed of that.

[WatsonGlenn]

I do not think that it is, and we should be ashamed of that.

I'm not ashamed. The USA was attacked by Muslim forces from the Middle East. We had to retaliate. There was no other choise. Its a harsh world and its so easy to sit back and enjoy the freedoms the USA provides while attacking the basic way in which those freedoms are provided.

No one ever said the USA was perfect but you have to pick a side and so far I side with the USA.

[WatsonGlenn]

As I mentioned somewhere here a few weeks back, Chamberlain's treaty with Germany that "surrendered" the Sudatenland (aka Czechoslovakia) to Germany wasn't a "capitulation" at all, but a ploy aimed at aiming Germany east and toward the Soviet Union

Thats partly true but its also true that England and France betrayed treaties they had with Czechoslovakia in order that they would not have to fight. The surrender of the Sudatenland was not the first example f European appeasment towards Germany. Other examples include the growth of the German Army, the move into the French border territory and the invasion of Austria.

Stalin, whatever else can be said of him (like he was a monster and a monomaniac), wasn't stupid; he knew war with Germany was coming sooner or later.

Thats not true. Stalin was shocked when Operation Barbarossa was launched. We literaly went into his room for about a week and did not come out.

The Americans had to race to get into Berlin before the Russians did, and the Germans to some extent helped them because they didn't want the Russians to claim the place either.

Actually America allowed the USSR to get to Berlin first. There was no race at that point. If we really wanted to get there first we could have gone a differant way. You also have to recognize that the USA was fighting a two front war far from home and doing a darn good job of it.

Any history of WWII and the Russian contribution to it would be remis in not mentioning Russia's complicity in the start of the war. The fact that they fought back when Hitler double crossed them does not erase their own complicity in the invasions of Poland and Finland.

And you are really underestimating the value of US aid during the war. Its not so much the weapons we provied but the food and fuel that really made a differance.

Throw in the fact that the USSR only jumped into the war with Japan after we had already won it and you have to admit WWII was not their finest hour.

As for the USA not being able to defeat Germany without the help of Russia, the existance of US nuclear weapons proves that is not true.

[NatGertler]

The USA was attacked by Muslim forces from the Middle East. We had to retaliate.The USA was attacked by men, so by that kind of logic we should indiscriminately attack any men we can find. (And heck, we went after Iraq, which was not a Muslim state.)

[Adam Crocker]

Thats not true. Stalin was shocked when Operation Barbarossa was launched. We literaly went into his room for about a week and did not come out.

I have been reading a book on Kruschev and the accounts of Stalin at the time make it pretty clear that Stalin knew that war was coming with Germany. However, he dealt with it rather poorly by trying to pretend nothing was happening. Yet Krushchev observed that he was increasingly summoning his lackeys to his Dacha at night as though he needed the company to ease his mind. This was coupled by him drinking more than usual and egging his subordinates to do so. Crucially Kruschev noticed that Stalin's response to the defeat of English and French forces in 1940 was to nervously swear at them for alllowing themselves to be routed. Considering his behaviour at the time it seems like he knew it was coming even if he didn't properly prepare for it.

[WatsonGlenn]

The USA was attacked by men, so by that kind of logic we should indiscriminately attack any men we can find. (And heck, we went after Iraq, which was not a Muslim state.)


Great idea Nat. We should attack all men. Thats the kind of ivory tower arguement that has won so many elections for Democrats over the last 8 years.

And then you throw in the amazing point that Iraq is not a Muslim nation! Unbelievable. And the thing is you're right. Despite the fact that Iraq is full of Muslims and Muslims fill and have filled just about every ofice in that nation since its inception its not a Muslim nation. I'm sure the CIA would agree.

So the Hell what?

The reality is it is a Muslim nation in all the ways that concern the USA and our goals after 9/11. Denying that is like denying the gun pointed at your head was obtained legally. So the Hell what!